IRC log of rdf-star on 2023-04-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:00:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
16:00:45 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-rdf-star-irc
16:00:45 [rubensworks]
present+
16:00:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-star
16:00:57 [TallTed]
present+
16:00:59 [ora]
present+
16:01:00 [afs]
zakim, this will be RDF star
16:01:00 [Zakim]
ok, afs
16:01:06 [ktk]
zakim, who's here?
16:01:06 [Zakim]
Present: TallTed, ora
16:01:09 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, pfps, ora, rubensworks, TallTed, AZ, gkellogg, Dominik_T, afs, ghurlbot, VladimirAlexiev, Timothe, agendabot, driib, Tpt, ktk, csarven, rhiaro, gtw, pchampin
16:01:12 [ktk]
present+
16:01:14 [afs]
present+
16:01:17 [Dominik_T]
present+
16:01:31 [TallTed]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f2add3af-6743-4f52-8fcc-4f62c6cdd8af/20230413T120000#agenda
16:01:31 [agendabot]
clear agenda
16:01:31 [agendabot]
agenda+ Scribe: Thibodeau, Ted (alternate: Zimmermann, Antoine)
16:01:31 [agendabot]
agenda+ Approval of last week's minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2023/04/06-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:01:31 [agendabot]
agenda+ Review of open actions, available at -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3
16:01:32 [agendabot]
agenda+ Review of pull requests, available at -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4
16:01:35 [agendabot]
agenda+ Continuation "First Public Working Draft" (FPWD) process
16:01:36 [enrico]
enrico has joined #rdf-star
16:01:37 [gkellogg]
meeting: RDF-star WG
16:01:42 [agendabot]
agenda+ Use case proposal by Peter: -> 4 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Mar/0100.html
16:01:43 [agendabot]
agenda+ Update on process concerns/proposal: -> 5 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Mar/0064.html
16:01:45 [TallTed]
Zakim, start meeting
16:01:46 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:01:47 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), TallTed
16:01:47 [agendabot]
agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting Next week's scribe: Zimmermann, Antoine
16:01:47 [enrico]
present+
16:01:59 [TallTed]
meeting: RDF-Star Working Group
16:02:08 [olaf]
olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:02:11 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:02:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:02:27 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:02:30 [TallTed]
scribe+
16:02:38 [ora]
chair+
16:03:12 [TallTed]
Zakim, close item 1
16:03:12 [Zakim]
agendum 1, Scribe: Thibodeau, Ted (alternate: Zimmermann, Antoine), closed
16:03:14 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:03:14 [Zakim]
2. Approval of last week's minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2023/04/06-rdf-star-minutes.html [from agendabot]
16:03:14 [olaf]
present+
16:03:17 [pfps]
minutes look fine
16:03:25 [TallTed]
Zakim, open item 2
16:03:25 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Approval of last week's minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2023/04/06-rdf-star-minutes.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:03:44 [TallTed]
ora: any comments on last week's minutes?
16:03:49 [TallTed]
[crickets]
16:04:04 [ora]
PROPOSAL: Accept last week's minutes
16:04:09 [AZ]
+1
16:04:10 [ora]
+1
16:04:12 [Dominik_T]
+1
16:04:13 [ktk]
+1
16:04:17 [pfps]
+1
16:04:21 [gkellogg]
+1
16:04:26 [rubensworks]
+1
16:04:26 [TallTed]
<TallTed> +1
16:04:37 [olaf]
+1
16:04:38 [afs]
+1
16:04:40 [enrico]
+1
16:04:45 [ora]
RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes
16:04:55 [TallTed]
Zakim, next agendum
16:04:55 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Review of open actions, available at -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:05:21 [doerthe]
doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:05:29 [doerthe]
present+
16:05:33 [TallTed]
ora: nothing completed; pchampin is on vacation
16:05:40 [TallTed]
regrets+ pchampin
16:05:45 [TallTed]
Zakim, next agendum
16:05:45 [Zakim]
agendum 3 was just opened, TallTed
16:05:53 [TallTed]
zakim, close item 3
16:05:53 [Zakim]
agendum 3, Review of open actions, available at -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3, closed
16:05:55 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:05:55 [Zakim]
4. Review of pull requests, available at -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 [from agendabot]
16:06:03 [TallTed]
Zakim, next agendum
16:06:03 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- Review of pull requests, available at -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:06:23 [ora]
q?
16:06:29 [TallTed]
ora: we have a bunch of PRs to discuss. who wants to start?
16:06:55 [pfps]
q+
16:06:56 [TallTed]
gkellogg: concepts update and terminology...
16:07:39 [TallTed]
gkellogg: I was referring to rdf-comcepts#32, but doing others first may make more sense
16:07:39 [ghurlbot]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-comcepts/issues/32 -> Issue 32 [not found]
16:07:52 [TallTed]
ora: 2 editorial changes marked with need discussion...
16:08:00 [pfps]
q+ on LI 38
16:08:07 [ora]
ack pfps
16:08:07 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to comment on LI 38
16:08:12 [TallTed]
subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/pull/8
16:08:35 [TallTed]
pfps: it's just languishing. someone needs to work on it.
16:08:56 [TallTed]
ora: any volunteers to fix it?
16:09:44 [TallTed]
pfps: a number of us have proposed changes.
16:10:04 [gkellogg]
scribe+
16:10:25 [gkellogg]
TallTed: Loooking at rdf-schema#8, I don't see any requested changes that have not been addressed
16:10:26 [ghurlbot]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/issues/8 -> Pull Request 8 change range of rdf:predicate + small HTML fixes (domel) needs discussion, spec:editorial
16:10:52 [gkellogg]
... Other than requests to change prose. If you have a request, please make a specific request for a change.
16:10:59 [gkellogg]
scribe-
16:11:51 [gkellogg]
scribe+
16:11:57 [afs]
q+
16:12:06 [gkellogg]
TallTed: You have a proposed suggestion, but no specific wording suggested.
16:12:21 [gkellogg]
pfps: Can anyone suggest editorial changes to documents?
16:12:28 [gkellogg]
TallTed: Yes, anyone can.
16:12:34 [gkellogg]
scribe-
16:12:39 [ora]
ack afs
16:13:07 [TallTed]
afs: Commits can also be added to an existing PR.
16:13:09 [gkellogg]
q+
16:13:12 [TallTed]
q+
16:13:15 [ora]
ack gkellogg
16:13:19 [pfps]
I'll put together a commit to resolve the issue, and change the issue title
16:13:36 [TallTed]
gkellogg: you can make a PR against a PR (or rather, against the branch behind the PR)
16:13:52 [TallTed]
... the suggestion mechanism is quite useful
16:14:08 [TallTed]
... none of these are limited to editorial changes
16:14:26 [ora]
ack TallTed
16:14:57 [gkellogg]
scribe+
16:15:37 [ora]
q+
16:15:43 [ora]
ack ora
16:15:46 [gkellogg]
TallTed: While a PR is a change request, be careful of loosing the chain of commits to the PR.
16:15:51 [gkellogg]
scribe-
16:15:54 [pfps]
I am again confused as to what I should do
16:16:14 [TallTed]
ors: I'm suggesting that pfps take the lead on these changes
16:16:21 [ora]
s/ors/ora
16:16:24 [gkellogg]
q+
16:16:30 [ora]
ack gkellogg
16:16:33 [TallTed]
pfps: I don't know what I'm supposed to be doing, as GitHub actions
16:17:08 [pfps]
OK, I'll push a commit on the branch of the PR?
16:17:44 [pfps]
Or not?
16:18:18 [Dominik_T_]
Dominik_T_ has joined #rdf-star
16:19:46 [ora]
q+
16:20:06 [ora]
ack ora
16:21:17 [pfps]
q+
16:21:23 [ora]
ack pfps
16:22:01 [afs]
I'm happy with commits on PRs I send in when the PR is otherwise quiet and the changes do not fit in a suggestion. e.g. the changes are in multiple places.
16:22:09 [gkellogg]
https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/incorporating-feedback-in-your-pull-request
16:23:47 [pfps]
q+
16:23:51 [TallTed]
ora: why is there needs-discussion on https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/pull/9 ?
16:23:59 [ora]
ack pfps
16:24:11 [TallTed]
gkellogg: pfps took issue with something there
16:24:33 [TallTed]
pfps: I would like PR and Issue names and descriptions correspond to their content
16:25:07 [TallTed]
gkellogg: you need to clear your change request, because that blocks it from being merged
16:25:40 [gkellogg]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/pull/9
16:26:31 [gkellogg]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/32
16:26:40 [TallTed]
i|why is there needs-discussion|subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/pull/9|
16:26:49 [TallTed]
subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/32
16:27:37 [TallTed]
gkellogg: we have not settled on what to call triples that don't themselves include quoted triples, vs those that do
16:28:13 [TallTed]
... "simple" and "complex" were one suggestion, which I've started to apply
16:28:46 [TallTed]
... we need to decide on nomenclature to use going forward; this was one attempt to do that
16:29:03 [TallTed]
q?
16:29:11 [afs]
q+
16:29:20 [TallTed]
ora: any other comments?
16:29:26 [ora]
ack afs
16:29:56 [TallTed]
afs: I'm not seeing the need for this extra terminology. a triple has 3 components, whether one of those may be a quoted triple or not.
16:30:27 [TallTed]
... making this another concept seems unnecessary and potentially confusing
16:31:09 [TallTed]
gkellogg: we do still have the collective "triple" including both "simple" and "complex"
16:31:25 [TallTed]
afs: I don't think we need this in top-level terminology
16:31:39 [TallTed]
ora: so we could have this elsewhere, not at top-level?
16:31:47 [TallTed]
afs: yes
16:33:46 [ora]
q+
16:34:47 [TallTed]
[back and forth between afs and gkellogg]
16:34:54 [ora]
ack ora
16:35:38 [TallTed]
ora: so we have triples (all encompassing), complex triples (containing quoted triples as subj or obj), and simple triples (no quoted triples in play)
16:35:42 [olaf]
q+
16:35:46 [pfps]
q+
16:35:54 [ora]
ack olaf
16:36:16 [TallTed]
... could we have complex and non-complex triples, clarifying the disjoint relationship between these?
16:36:31 [enrico]
q+
16:36:49 [ora]
ack pfps
16:37:11 [TallTed]
olaf: I can see both sides. I think the differentiating terminology will be useful, but I want nested and non-nested triples, instead of complex and simple
16:37:12 [gkellogg]
q+
16:37:23 [afs]
q+
16:37:28 [ora]
ack enrico
16:37:43 [TallTed]
pfps: I wonder why we're discussing this in context of a directed PR, rather than an overarching issue
16:38:39 [TallTed]
enrico: I think triples remain triples, and when used as terms (subj or obj), they are "triple-terms"
16:39:14 [TallTed]
ora: how would you refer to the triples which use triple-terms?
16:39:22 [ora]
ack gkellogg
16:39:32 [TallTed]
enrico: RDF 1.1 triple, or simple/complex triple, maybe
16:40:02 [TallTed]
gkellogg: to answer pfps, the discussion has arisen on a PR because the PR made the issue visible
16:40:30 [TallTed]
... nested vs unnested might be reasonable alternative
16:40:52 [ora]
"There are only two things that are hard in CS: naming, cache invalidation, and off-by-one errors."
16:41:13 [ora]
q?
16:41:16 [enrico]
q+
16:41:38 [TallTed]
... retrospectively, we know that triples that include blank nodes do not need to be differentiated from triples that do not include blank nodes, but we don't yet have hindsight about nested/quoted/embedded/etc. triples
16:41:44 [ora]
ack afs
16:42:12 [TallTed]
afs: what about changes in RDF 1.2 that are not about quoted triples? there's at least one such
16:42:48 [TallTed]
... there seems to be a lot more editing needed
16:43:22 [TallTed]
... I'm concerned about inventing terminology that will not be used except by confused people
16:44:13 [ora]
ack enrico
16:44:28 [TallTed]
... there hasn't been much discussion on the PR because it's labeled as a Use Case
16:45:07 [ora]
q+
16:45:15 [TallTed]
enrico: we say that "ground triples" are triples without bnodes. maybe we say "flat triples" are those without embedded/quoted/nested
16:45:24 [ora]
ack ora
16:46:05 [TallTed]
ora: clearly, naming is extremely important. at some future point, we will need a careful review to make sure that terms are used consistently.
16:46:40 [TallTed]
... in history of RDF development, we used "pumpkin" as a stand-in for "nodes", which we hadn't figure out a name for yet
16:47:24 [TallTed]
... we have two things: 1) what to do for this PR, if anything; 2) the broader issue of making all specs consistent internally and across the board
16:47:28 [gkellogg]
q+
16:47:34 [ora]
ack gkellogg
16:48:16 [TallTed]
gkellogg: I think the controversial terms serve the purpose for now. afs has some ideas about doc organization which would help clarify things as we go forward
16:48:51 [pfps]
q+ to ask whether this PR will be merged in before FPWD
16:48:54 [TallTed]
... specific comments in the PR will help move it along. terminology may be considered placeholders for now, with refinement to happen later.
16:49:21 [TallTed]
ora: I think we've got a reasonable path forward for now
16:49:30 [gkellogg]
q+
16:49:38 [TallTed]
... time is short again, but perhaps we have time for one more item
16:49:55 [ora]
ack pfps
16:49:55 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to ask whether this PR will be merged in before FPWD
16:50:04 [TallTed]
afs: how do we add material from CG report to these documents?
16:50:22 [ora]
ack gkellogg
16:50:32 [afs]
s/how do we add/are we adding/
16:50:37 [TallTed]
pfps: how does this relate to FPWD?
16:51:04 [afs]
q+
16:51:04 [TallTed]
gkellogg: waiting until things are perfect will mean we never publish FPWD
16:51:24 [TallTed]
... text direction, canonicalization, some other things want work
16:51:38 [TallTed]
ora: what is https://github.com/w3c/sparql-protocol/pull/13 ?
16:51:47 [TallTed]
ktk: I created that
16:51:58 [gkellogg]
q+ to discuss disposition of other bits of the RDF-star CG report
16:52:22 [TallTed]
... it's just an informative addition to the SPARQL protocol spec, showing another SELECT query
16:52:32 [ora]
ack afs
16:52:46 [ora]
ack gkellogg
16:52:46 [Zakim]
gkellogg, you wanted to discuss disposition of other bits of the RDF-star CG report
16:52:57 [TallTed]
afs: i18n issues are awaiting a consensus proposal, which I have floating around in my head, waiting to put forward
16:53:29 [TallTed]
gkellogg: there are several elements of the CG report that need incorporation, some in rdf-new, some elsewhere
16:54:51 [TallTed]
afs: question was about a principle decision, of whether we incorporate CG report into 1.2 specs now or later, after we resolve more basic updates than nested (or whatever)
16:55:37 [TallTed]
gkellogg: much should/must wait until semantics TF has done its work
16:55:46 [TallTed]
ora: we're at time
16:56:00 [TallTed]
... propose adjournment
16:56:05 [TallTed]
[no objections]
16:56:14 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:56:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:56:46 [ktk]
s/ktk/rubensworks/
16:59:21 [TallTed]
i|what is|subtopic: w3c/sparql-protocol#13|
16:59:21 [ghurlbot]
https://github.com/w3c/sparql-protocol/issues/13 -> Pull Request 13 Add informative quoted triples example, Closes #12 (rubensworks) needs discussion
16:59:34 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:59:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:00:23 [TallTed]
i/i18n issues/topic: brief AOB/
17:00:56 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:00:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:01:48 [TallTed]
s| https://github.com/w3c/sparql-protocol/issues/13 -> Pull Request 13 Add informative quoted triples example, Closes #12 (rubensworks) needs discussion||
17:01:48 [ghurlbot]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/12 -> Action 12 [closed] add ora's and greg's regret and chair name in last calls minutes (on pchampin) due 2 Feb 2023
17:02:28 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:02:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:03:27 [TallTed]
s/s| https/s|https/
17:03:40 [TallTed]
s| https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/12 -> Action 12 [closed] add ora's and greg's regret and chair name in last calls minutes (on pchampin) due 2 Feb 2023||
17:03:48 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:03:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:45:33 [pfps]
pfps has left #rdf-star
17:58:45 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:16:15 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:34:19 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:53:46 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:02:29 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:38:39 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:55:39 [gkellogg_]
gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-star
21:00:49 [gkellog__]
gkellog__ has joined #rdf-star
21:02:41 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:09:40 [gkellogg_]
gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-star
23:24:38 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:42:07 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:46:48 [gkellogg_]
gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-star